# Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org (08 Oct 2011)
# Fails to compile against system libpng15, bug 356127
# Removal in 14 days
media-gfx/pngcrush
Hi guys
There is some FUD regarding GCC upgrades and I don't have the proper
knowledge to write a correct document on GCC upgrades. As you are currently
aware, we have a GCC upgrade guide [1], but it has seen its last update in
2008. Since then, things have undoubtedly changed.
What I can find
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 4:47 AM, Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
# Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org (08 Oct 2011)
# Fails to compile against system libpng15, bug 356127
# Removal in 14 days
14 days?
media-gfx/pngcrush
On 10/08/2011 04:19 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 4:47 AM, Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
# Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org (08 Oct 2011)
# Fails to compile against system libpng15, bug 356127
# Removal in 14 days
14 days?
approx. 14 days and counting to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 10/08/2011 02:19 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 4:47 AM, Samuli Suominen
ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
# Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org (08 Oct 2011) # Fails to
compile against system libpng15, bug 356127 # Removal in 14
On 08-10-2011 15:20:56 +0100, Markos Chandras wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 10/08/2011 02:19 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 4:47 AM, Samuli Suominen
ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
# Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org (08 Oct 2011) # Fails to
On 08-10-2011 15:49:00 +0100, Markos Chandras wrote:
We can't really wait forever for slacking maintainers to fix
their packages. amd64 is almost ready to have libpng-1.5 stable
in the very near future
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=2chap=5#doc_chap8
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 10/08/2011 02:19 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
14 days?
We can't really wait forever for slacking maintainers to fix their
packages. amd64 is almost ready to have libpng-1.5 stable in the very
near future
Didn't we just
Il giorno sab, 08/10/2011 alle 11.33 +, Sven Vermeulen ha scritto:
- The fix_libtool_files.sh command is now part of the toolchain
eclass, so
doesn't need to be ran by users anymore
Moreover, that should only be needed for very old installs: libstdc++.la
that caused the trouble in the
On 08-10-2011 11:05:08 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
If the extra 16 days will actually accomplish something beyond just
delaying libpng then we can debate the finer points of policy.
However, if we're just arguing policy for its own sake then I don't
see the value. Perhaps a package maintainer
Guys,
the policy makes perfect sense, there are people that sync just
monthly, so they might want to get some headsup why their packages are
going away, and not just remove them.
Thats why the recommended value is 60 days, 30 for urgent cases,
lately we just moved to 30 for everything, but please
On 10/08/2011 06:13 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
On 08-10-2011 11:05:08 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
If the extra 16 days will actually accomplish something beyond just
delaying libpng then we can debate the finer points of policy.
However, if we're just arguing policy for its own sake then I don't
On 08-10-2011 18:33:15 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
It's not like fastened lastriting hasn't happened before. I question
your motives in picking this particular one. It's not like I expected
cookies for the time I've put into this porting effort, but not this
attack either.
If you feel I'm
I checked
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?part=1chap=5
and the Handbook only mentions validating MD5 checksums.
There are two possible issues:
1. Why are we using _only_ MD5 and SHA1 as the checksums? Shouldn't we
be using something stronger?
2. I noticed the checksums
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 10/08/2011 02:19 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 4:47 AM, Samuli Suominen
ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
# Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org (08 Oct 2011) # Fails to
compile against system libpng15,
On Sat, Oct 08, 2011 at 02:45:02PM -0700, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote:
I checked
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?part=1chap=5
and the Handbook only mentions validating MD5 checksums.
There are two possible issues:
1. Why are we using _only_ MD5 and SHA1 as the
SV == Sven Vermeulen sw...@gentoo.org writes:
SV - Since 3.4.0/4.1.0, the C++ ABI is forward-compatible, so rebuilds
SV from that version onwards should not be needed
That is not generally true.
I use gcc-4.5 as my system gcc, but mostly use 4.6 when building things
outside of portage. I
On 10/8/11 3:43 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
1. Why are we using _only_ MD5 and SHA1 as the checksums? Shouldn't we
be using something stronger?
Fixed in Catalyst now.
http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/catalyst.git;a=commit;h=42b4f6608682cf03954918ecce7923330a1656fe
So when the
On Sat, Oct 08, 2011 at 04:39:40PM -0700, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote:
On 10/8/11 3:43 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
1. Why are we using _only_ MD5 and SHA1 as the checksums? Shouldn't we
be using something stronger?
Fixed in Catalyst now.
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 6:57 PM, James Cloos cl...@jhcloos.com wrote:
SV == Sven Vermeulen sw...@gentoo.org writes:
SV - Since 3.4.0/4.1.0, the C++ ABI is forward-compatible, so rebuilds
SV from that version onwards should not be needed
That is not generally true.
I use gcc-4.5 as my
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 6:43 PM, Robin H. Johnson robb...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sat, Oct 08, 2011 at 02:45:02PM -0700, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote:
I checked
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?part=1chap=5
and the Handbook only mentions validating MD5 checksums.
There are two
On Sat, Oct 08, 2011 at 08:21:44PM -0400, Matt Turner wrote:
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 6:43 PM, Robin H. Johnson robb...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sat, Oct 08, 2011 at 02:45:02PM -0700, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote:
I checked
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?part=1chap=5
and the
On 10/8/11 5:01 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
Ah, I just forgot about that page. Okay, so can we also update the
Handbook to include GPG signature checking?
It DOES already mention checking the signature:
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?part=1chap=2#doc_chap3
That's good,
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
phajdan...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 10/8/11 5:01 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
Ah, I just forgot about that page. Okay, so can we also update the
Handbook to include GPG signature checking?
It DOES already mention checking the signature:
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 9:41 PM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 10/08/11 22:45, Matt Turner wrote:
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Markos Chandras
hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 10/08/2011 02:19 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
On Sat,
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 9:41 PM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
1) use bundled zlib and libpng14. Doh this is not a fix. It is barely
a workaround. What if a vulnerability is discovered in the bundled
version of libpng in the next months? Will upstream fix it? Highly
unlikely since
26 matches
Mail list logo
